Maybe these immigrant
criminals should be housed next-door to these judges following their
release?

Undesirable and dangerous' immigrant
criminals can not be deported from Britain, say Euro judges

Undesirable' and 'dangerous' immigrants who
have committed serious crimes in Britain cannot be deported if they
face 'ill-treatment' at home because it is against their Human Rights.

The convicts can never be sent back - regardless of how bad their
crimes are, European judges ruled today.

As two Somalis won their appeal against deportation today there were
fears that up to 200 more criminals could be allowed to stay fearing
they will be tortured if sent back.

Strasbourg judges that the men could not be sent back to Mogadishu -
despite serious convictions.

The European Court of Human Rights awarded Abdisamad Adow Sufi and
Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, both currently in UK immigration detention
centres, £12,500 and £6,700 respectively for costs and
expenses in bringing the case.

Sufi, 24, claimed asylum in the UK in 2003 on the grounds that he
belonged to a minority clan persecuted by Somali militia. His account
was rejected as not credible and asylum refused.

Elmi, 42, arrived in the UK in 1988 and was granted leave to stay as a
refugee in 1989, renewed indefinitely in 1993.

After convictions for a number of serious criminal offences - including
burglary and threats to kill in Sufi's case, and robbery and supplying
class A drugs cocaine and heroin in Elmi's case - they were issued with
deportation orders.

Their UK appeals that they risked being ill-treated or killed if
returned to Mogadishu were rejected.

The European Court of Human Rights blocked their deportation pending a
hearing of their appeals to the Strasbourg court.

Today the seven-judge court ruled unanimously that deporting them would
breach the Human Rights Convention Article 3 which bans 'inhuman or
degrading treatment'.

The ruling said: 'The court reiterated that the prohibition of torture
and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute,
irrespective of the victims' conduct.

'Consequently, the applicants' behaviour, however undesirable or
dangerous, could not be taken into account.'

The judges said no one disputed that, towards the end of 2008,
Mogadishu was not a safe place to live for the majority of its
citizens. The situation had deteriorated since then.

The ruling cited the UK's own Asylum and Immigration Tribunal which
acknowledged the dangers, while saying it was possible that individuals
with connections to powerful people in Mogadishu might be able to live
there safely.

Anyone else being returned would face a real risk of persecution or
serious harm, although those whose home area was in any part of
southern and central Somalia might be able to go back in safety and
without undue hardship.

Human Rights Watch described the situation in Mogadishu as 'one of the
world's worst human rights catastrophes'.

The judges concluded that the general level of violence in Mogadishu
'was of sufficient intensity to pose a real risk of treatment in breach
of Article 3 to anyone in the capital'.

The judgment described the case as the 'lead case' against the UK, with
214 similar cases pending before the same court.